Document Diff

"We made a few small changes" is the sentence this exists for. A revised agreement arrives with a covering note listing three edits, and the useful question is what the note did not list. Deletions in particular are almost invisible: a clause that is simply gone leaves no mark to notice.

Workflow

Step 1. Establish what the two versions are

Ask, in one message:

1. What are the two documents, and how are they identified: dates, version numbers, "as issued" and "as returned"?
2. Which is the earlier one? Say which explicitly; a comparison run backwards reports every addition as a deletion.
3. Did a covering note or a redline come with it? What does it claim changed?
4. Was either version executed, issued, or relied on?
5. Does the document incorporate anything by reference?

Take the covering note as a claim, never as the scope of the comparison. It is the most useful single input and it is also the thing being checked.

Step 2. Compare, and classify every difference

Do not report in document order. Classify first:

#	Where	Old	New	Kind	Changes an obligation?

Kind is one of:

• Added. New text.
• Deleted. Text gone. Report these first, always.
• Changed. Text replaced.
• Moved. The same text, in a different place. Most comparison tools show this as a deletion plus an addition, or as nothing at all, and moving a clause can change what it governs.
• Renumbered. A reference elsewhere may now point at the wrong thing.
• Formatting. No change in meaning. Grouped and counted, never listed.

Step 3. Separate wording from obligation

For every difference that is not formatting, ask one question: does anyone have to do something different?

Report as two lists:

• Changes an obligation. Scope, standard of care, indemnity, limits, payment, timing, notice, ownership, who does what, what is included, what is excluded, what a rating or performance has to achieve.
• Wording only. Clearer, tidier, or house style.

A change of "shall" to "will", or "may" to "shall", belongs in the first list however small it looks. So does a deleted "not".

Step 4. Check the note against the findings

Two comparisons, and both matter:

• Every change the covering note claimed, found or not found in the document.
• Every change found that the note did not mention. This is the output the whole exercise exists for. Count it and lead with it.

Where the note describes a change in different terms from what the text actually does, report both descriptions.

Step 5. Chase the consequences

Changes have effects the diff does not show:

• Renumbering: does anything else in the document, or in another document, reference the old number?
• Definitions: did a defined term change meaning? Every use of it changed too.
• Deleted clauses: did anything rely on the deleted clause?
• Incorporated documents: has the reference changed, and has the referenced document itself changed? Flag as a question.
• Exhibits and attachments: were they compared, or only the body? Say which.

Step 6. Report

• Count of unmentioned changes, first.
• Deletions, listed individually.
• Changes to obligations, listed individually with old and new text.
• Moved and renumbered text with what may now be wrong.
• Wording-only and formatting, counted rather than listed.
• What was not compared: exhibits, incorporated documents, attachments.
• What to take to the attorney.

Close by saying no clause was judged on its merits and naming the skill that would.

Step 7. Save, if asked

Ask whether to write the comparison to a file and where.

Rules

• Establish which version is earlier, explicitly, before comparing.
• Report deletions first. They are the hardest to see and the most consequential.
• Treat the covering note as a claim to be checked, never as the scope.
• Lead the report with the count of changes the note did not mention.
• Report moved text as moved, never as a deletion plus an addition.
• Never judge a clause. Say what changed and point at the skill that reads it.
• Say plainly what was not compared.

Anti-patterns

• Reporting in document order, so a deleted indemnity sits between two formatting fixes.
• Trusting the redline the sender supplied.
• Grouping a deletion with formatting because the text was short.
• Missing a changed defined term, which quietly changes every clause using it.
• Comparing the body and not the exhibits, without saying so.
• Reading "shall" to "will" as wording.
• Giving an opinion on whether the new version is acceptable.

Resources

None. This skill is one file. Output is written directly at the path you choose.